Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Syed Sahidul Islam, S/o. Late Kutubuddin Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Raifuddin Ahmed @ Rick Baba, S/o. Md. Mohin Ahmed – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of lawful tenancy and trespass (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. application of section 10 cpc (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. consideration of submissions (Para 8) |
| 4. tests for applicability of section 10 cpc (Para 9 , 12) |
| 5. dismissal of revision petition (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. S.J. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned senior counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in T.S. No.114/2014.
3. The present petitioners filed T.S. 244/2006 in the court of the Munsiff No.3 at Guwahati praying for a declaration that they are lawful occupiers in respect of the suit property and prayed for permanent injunction restraining the present respondent (the defendant in the said suit) from forcible dispossession from the suit property.
4. The T.S. 244/2006 was decreed on contest and the present respondent (the defendant in the said suit) filed an appeal being T.A. 123/2014.
5. Thereafter, the present respondent (the defendant in T.S. 244/2006) filed
The court ruled that disparate issues in two suits negate the application of Section 10 CPC, as previous judgments do not influence subsequent proceedings in this context.
For a stay under Section 10 of the CPC, issues in both suits must be directly and substantially identical; differing issues result in dismissal of stay applications.
Section 10 CPC mandates stay of subsequent suit if issues directly/substantially same as prior pending suit between same parties on common property/cause challenging prior decree, preventing parallel....
The court clarified that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for identity in both the matter in issue and the relief sought.
Section 10 of the CPC prevents concurrent trials of suits with identical issues; distinct issues allow separate proceedings.
Under Section 10 CPC, different reliefs sought in suits permit simultaneous proceedings, as the provision aims to prevent concurrent trials of the same matter.
Section 10 CPC applies only when issues in both suits are directly and substantially the same; otherwise, separate proceedings may continue without conflict.
A co-defendant cannot file a counter-claim against another co-defendant in a separate suit over distinct property matters, allowing the autonomous pursuit of relief in such disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
